Up to 94 retailers of tobacco products located in unincorporated parts of Contra Costa County will need to comply with a new ordinance designed to protect youth from using tobacco products, a leading cause of heart and lung disease related deaths in the United States.

County supervisors voted 5-0 Tuesday in approving a Tobacco Retailer Ordinance, a law that took two years in the development process at the Planning Commission level until earlier this month when the commission passed a resolution recommending that supervisors reject the proposed law.

The Planning Commission’s resolution stated denial is based on “the proposed Tobacco Retail Business Ordinance is not necessary and places an undue burden on existing tobacco retailer businesses.”

But county supervisors did not accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to reject the ordinance.

When supervisors initially received the Tobacco Retailer Ordinance it included a 10-year non-conforming use provision, but supervisors decided to eject that clause on grounds it would be too much of an economic burden on store owners that was lobbied by retail groups like the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO).

Even then Jaimie Rojas of NATO criticized the ordinance saying it is an example of “government overreach.”Rojas said the ordinance will also spark economic impacts by forcing retail owners to lay off employees and will “ignite consumer confusion.”

The Tobacco Retailer Ordinance imposes distance limits on existing and new tobacco retailers and operators of hookah lounges and vapor lounges even though there are no hookah and vapor lounges in operation in the unincorporated areas of the county.

The county ordinance prohibits new tobacco retailers from being located within 500 feet of any other existing tobacco retailer, hookah lounge or vapor lounge.The new law that goes into effect next month, also prohibits these new businesses from being located 1,000 feet of a public or private school, playground, park or library.

Existing businesses can be within 500 feet of another existing tobacco retailer or within 1,000 feet of a school, park, playground or library, but the retailer, hookah lounge or vapor lounge owner but will not be permitted to expand its tobacco retail use.

District 1 Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond hailed the ordinance commenting “There will be no new ones (i.e. tobacco retailers) in unincorporated Contra Costa County.”

Next week supervisors are expected to adopt an ordinance with similar distance requirements to be applied to tobacco retailers selling flavored tobacco products marketed heavily to youth under the legal smoking age of 21.

The supervisors’ action is expected to trigger action from city councils around the county to pass similar ordinances designed to clamp down on the 636 tobacco retail, hookah lounge and vapor lounge businesses in incorporated areas.

“I think I have been a leader on this issue,” proclaimed board chair Federal Glover whose District 5 includes Bay Point that has one of the highest concentrations of tobacco retailers, 16, located nearby schools, parks, playgrounds or libraries.“I am also pleased with the ordinance’s grandfathering provision,” he said.

District 3 Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood said she was concerned about how the ordinance’s 500-foot limit might have a major economic impact on retailers in a small tourist town like Bethel Island.

“I don’t want it to punish these businesses,” Burgis said.

District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville branded the ordinance as being “reasonable” based on how the new law will stymy new tobacco retail businesses from opening within close proximity of existing businesses or from being located within 1,000 feet from a school, playground, park, or and library.

The supervisor said it is mainly because of the easy availability or accessibility of tobacco products that “It’s shocking to see 12, 13, and 14-year-old little league baseball players chomping on chewing tobacco during games.”

The City operated shelter has been regularly over-populated with dogs and cats, of which many of the animals are dropped off by out-of-town Antioch residents.In 2016, the average daily animal count at the shelter was 196, when the recommended daily animal count based by the American Humane Society should be 101 at 2017 daily standards.

To help remedy the animal overpopulation problem at the shelter, the grand jury asked the Board of Supervisors to respond to two recommendations.

One recommendation calls on county supervisors to consider funding a study to “examine the feasibility of establishing a county shelter in east county.”

The second recommendation suggests that the City of Antioch and county negotiate a memorandum of understanding whereby the Antioch shelter accepts all animals, but animals identified as non-city of Antioch animals should be regularly picked up by County Animal Control Officers and transported to the county shelter.

We the undersigned would first like to commend the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for holding the special June 23rd meeting to discuss the appointment process for our next district attorney and for posting the process and timeline on the county website. While we believe your intent is to engage in a transparent, community-first process to appoint the interim DA of our county, we have serious concerns about the current process as laid out.

In our June 22, 2017 letter to the Board, we expressed an interest in a transparent, community-first and community driven process to appoint the next DA. To us, this means the community is included in ALL decision-making points and is able to weigh in on substantive policy questions posed to each applicant. As currently outlined, we believe the process you have laid out excludes community input and fails to deliver on the promise of transparency.

Specifically, page 2 of the June 23rd press release[1] issued by the County Administrator’s Office states, “With applications due July 21, the Board of Supervisors will select finalists in early August. The Board of Supervisors will host a moderated candidate forum at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2017.” This indicates that while the community will be allowed to ask questions of finalists selected by the Board, the community will have no involvement in the selection of finalists from the initial pool of applicants. We believe that narrowing the pool to 3-5 candidates is a critical first step and involvement from the community in this step, and all other steps until appointment, is essential to rebuilding trust.

To remedy this, we urge the Board of Supervisors to revisit the interim DA appointment process before July 21 by placing it on a July meeting agenda and consider some options, including:

Create a community selection committee comprised of community leaders, reflective and representing the geographic and demographic diversity of the county, as well as representatives from the following constituencies and/or organizations: criminal justice reform, immigrant rights, formerly incarcerated individuals, victims’ rights, the Public Defender Union, the District Attorney Union, labor, consumer rights and law enforcement. This committee will be responsible for formulating questions for applicants to answer as part of the application process. This committee will also work with the Board in early August to select the finalists and the final rationale for why applicants were, or were not, selected as finalists.

Host at least two community forums with applicants, one which will include all applicants and a second which will include the finalists.

Disclose the following information in a timely manner: any past or present endorsement, campaign contribution, private meeting, and/or personal dealing between any member of the Board of Supervisors and any applicant for interim DA.

Require all applicants for interim DA to disclose if they share the same political consultant and/or fundraiser with any members of the Board of Supervisors.

We the undersigned and the residents of Contra Costa County demand integrity from our Board of Supervisors in this process. We will not stand for corruption, closed door meetings or the doling out of favors. It is important to remember that the DA is an elected official and is ultimately accountable to us, the voters. We are fully aware that whomever the Board appoints to be our interim DA will have the advantage of incumbency come the June 2018 election. It is for this reason that the Board must include the community in all phases of the process and why we continue to advocate for a fully transparent and community-first process.

If the Board refuses to modify the process and address the concerns outlined in this letter, the public will not let the Board move forward without significant resistance.

Thank you again for your consideration of our requests and we look forward to re-establishing trust between the community and government by way of a modified process. If you have any questions for our coalition, please contact Sharlee Battle from Safe Return Project at SharleeBattle@gmail.com.

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors met Friday, June 23, 2017, to determine the process for filling the vacant office of the District Attorney. When a vacancy occurs in an elective county office, the Board of Supervisors has the responsibility to appoint a successor to serve for the duration of the unexpired term. The June 14, 2017 resignation of Mark Peterson from the position of District Attorney created a vacancy that would extend until the current term of office expires on January 7, 2019. The next election for the District Attorney will take place in June of 2018, with a potential runoff election in November of 2018.

The Office of District Attorney is provided in the State Constitution. The District Attorney represents the people of the County in prosecuting all public offenses in the Superior Courts, including all felonies, misdemeanors, juvenile criminal offenses, and certain civil offenses, including high-tech crimes, environmental crimes, and many instances of fraud.

Although the Board of Supervisors has discretion in how to fill the position, there are some minimum requirements for the job. To qualify, a candidate must be at least 18 years old, a California citizen, a registered voter in Contra Costa County at the time of appointment, and admitted to practice law in the California Supreme Court. The Board of Supervisors is seeking candidates with experience in criminal law, familiarity with criminal justice issues in California, and the ability to effectively manage a County department with an annual budget of $19.5 million and more than 200 employees.

All applicants must apply online at www.cccounty.us/hr and submit the information as indicated on the job announcement no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 21, 2017. NOTE that a background investigation/fingerprint exam will be conducted on all finalists, and a permanent job offer is additionally contingent upon the successful completion of a thorough background investigation, which will include a criminal records investigation and an economic disclosure (FPPC Form 700).

The legislature does not specify a deadline for making an appointment like this, but according to the California Attorney General, the appointment should be made within a “reasonable time.” With applications due July 21, the Board of Supervisors will select finalists in early August. The Board of Supervisors will host a moderated candidate forum at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2017. Members of the public will be invited to submit questions for consideration that may be asked of the finalist candidates. The Board will interview those candidates during a public meeting on Tuesday, September 12, with the goal of making a selection in September as well.

The June 23 meeting of the Board of Supervisors is available online in the video library found on the County’s homepage at www.ContraCosta.CA.gov. It will also be replayed in its entirety on Sunday, June 25, at 6:00 p.m., Monday, June 26, at 5:00 p.m., and Thursday, June 29, at 6:00 p.m. on Contra Costa Television (CCTV.) CCTV can be viewed on Comcast Channel 27, Wave Channel 32, and AT&T U-Verse on Channel 99.

Our community was shocked and angered last week to hear that former District Attorney Mark Peterson pled guilty to felony charges related to the illegal use of campaign funds, leading to his resignation. This unethical and dangerous abuse of power by the elected District Attorney is deeply concerning to us and we write today in the spirit of working to rebuild trust between local government in Contra Costa, including law enforcement and the District Attorney’s office, and the community they are meant to serve.

We believe a critical first step to rebuilding trust is for the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to engage in a fully transparent and community-centered process for appointing an interim District Attorney.

On behalf of Contra Costa County voters, we urge our Board to commit to a transparent, community-first process in making its selection of an interim District Attorney. In addition, we believe it is important for the Board to only consider applicants who have not filed to run in the June 2018 primary.

The District Attorney is one of the most powerful elected officials in county government and is the most powerful actor in our criminal justice system. The decisions made by the District Attorney impact every county resident, not just those who are directly involved in the criminal justice system. From determining when and what charges to file in individual cases; to making policy decisions that affect local communities as well as county and state budgets; to holding law enforcement accountable for unfair policies and practices, the Contra Costa District Attorney holds significant power and responsibility for the protection of our civil rights and freedoms.

For these reasons and more, it is critically important that our Board protect and uphold the right of the people of Contra Costa County to an inclusive and transparent process for appointment of an interim District Attorney.

In a transparent, community-first process, the Board of Supervisors should consider the following:

Publicly post a proposed process and timeline for appointment of an interim District Attorney;

Allow for public comment on the proposed process for appointment, consider comments, and post final process;

Only consider applications for interim appointment from individuals who are not currently running for District Attorney of Contra Costa County in 2018;

Solicit applications from lawyers in the community to apply for interim appointment and make submitted applications available for review by the public;

Hold public hearings at times convenient to working people with commute schedules, to receive input about nominees and other recommendations; and

Hold a final public hearing to vote for the interim District Attorney.

Due to the recent resignation and guilty plea by former District Attorney Mark Peterson, the people of Contra Costa County deserve transparency and fairness in the appointment of the interim District Attorney. It is incumbent upon the Board to begin to remedy the breakdown of trust between the community and government by taking the lead to ensure a fair and community-first process. We welcome the opportunity to support the efforts of our Board of Supervisors to achieve these very important goals.

Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner David Livingston exited the County Administration Building in Martinez the victor on Tuesday when county supervisors voted 4-1 to spend $25 million in general funds towards the construction of the controversial West Contra Costa County Reentry, Treatment, and Housing Facility in north Richmond. Only District 1 Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond voted no.

As the Sheriff left the building, a cluster of opponents to the project, chanted, “We Shall Overcome.”

Supervisors had agreed to spend county funds of which $15 million comes from the General Fund Reserve, $4.5 million from the Sheriff’s Plant Acquisition Account, and $2.5 million from the 2011 Local Revenue Fund upon learning the county was awarded $70 million in Senate Bill 844 Jail Construction funding from the California Board of State and Community Corrections on June 8. In addition, $3.2 million of 2011 In-Kind Match Land Value funds will be allocated for the project.

Two years ago Livingston was unsuccessful in securing SB 844 funding for the jail project when the county’s application was disqualified by the state corrections agency, but this time around the county’s application sailed through without difficulty, he told supervisors.

“It comes as no secret that I will vote no on this project,” said Gioia. “Spending $15 million of general fund money is inappropriate.”

The supervisor said this jail project has started a movement to “shift money from enforcement to prevention” in the community, a statement a number of community speakers had pleaded supervisors do numerous times over the past several months.

Obviously, the community push to spend county public money on community health programs instead on a county jail project that would provide mental health services for inmates fell apart.

Board Chair Federal Glover of Pittsburg disagreed with Gioia, saying, “I’m always on the prevention side. This will give those in our jail a pathway. They need programs where they can get another opportunity and find necessary tools to make it in the world when they are released.”

“We need to find ways to prevent and divert people from going to jail,” said District 3 Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood. “People want services, not jail cells. I understand that.”

Even then Burgis decided to spend the general fund money to construct the jail addition in north Richmond.

For five minutes District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville read a list of community based behavioral health organizations such as the North Richmond Center for Health, West County Health Center, Bay Point Family Health Center, Pittsburg Health Center and Willow Pass Wellness Centers which all receive a piece of the $253 million in public funds that the board of supervisors spends each year.

While Andersen listed the county backed mental organizations, opponents turned their backs to her in protest.

“I want you to know I have been out in the community,” said Andersen,” I’ve talked to people on both sides of the issue. There are many people who want this project to move forward, but are not here to speak. Those of you with your signs don’t want to listen to the truth.”

District 4 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff concurred with Andersen. “I’ve been in public office 14 years,” said Mitchoff, “We have been listening. This board has been putting millions of dollars into mental health programs in our communities.”

Mitchoff also said the board of supervisors had nothing to do with the April 2015 closure of Doctor’s Medical Center in San Pablo, a topic that infrequently popped up sporadically during the public hearings. The San Pablo hospital closed in April 2015 when a parcel tax measure placed by the hospital’s owner, the nonprofit West Contra Costa Health Care District, failed to gain a two-thirds voter approval in a May 2014 ballot by mail election.

There were plenty of speakers voicing disapproval over the jail project. Sixty-five of the 70 speakers opposed the jail project. Some speakers urged supervisors to delay making a decision over concerns the supervisors were being influenced to approve the funding because Sheriff Livingston had secured the SB 844 funding from the state.

Supervisors did not elaborate, but they said they were not swayed by the Sheriff-Coroner Office to approve the local funding portion for the jail project.

Gordon Miller insisted public money should be spent on mental health programs outside the jail. “It’s like putting lipstick on a pig,” he said in reference to the planned West Contra Costa County Reentry, Treatment and Housing Facility project.

“I want to understand why four out five of supervisors are on the wrong side on this issue,” said Kaiser nurse Susie Riley. “Mental health is the civil rights issue of our time.”

But County Mental Health Commissioner Karen Cohen of Walnut Creek, a mother of a mentally ill child, called on supervisors to approve the $25 million allocation so that the county can build the 416-bed jail expansion. “Do the right thing and move the project forward,” she said.

The project will provide 416 beds of which 320 beds will be for high security prisoners and 96 beds for behavioral health inmates, Sheriff-Coroner David Livingston told supervisors. The new facility will replace 420 beds in the existing Martinez jail.

While informing supervisors his department does not conduct United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps or participate in any other ICE activities, Livingston said his department has since 1992 provided beds for ICE arrestees.

“We receive $6 million a year in revenue from the federal government for that ICE contract and I won’t walk away from that kind of money,” Livingston said.

Grand Jury Report on East Contra Costa Fire Protection District

County officials will respond to at least two recommendations and one finding the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury has requested the board of supervisors respond to concerning the financially troubled East Contra Costa Fire Protection District.

Supervisors accepted the report at Tuesday’s board meeting, but did not comment on the report.

After closing five of the eight fire stations under the ECCFPD’s jurisdiction in 2009, the grand jury listed nine recommendations of which the county is responsible to respond to two recommendations.

One recommendation states: “The County should consider adopting a policy to collect impact fees from all developers of residential and commercial properties to fund capital improvements that will be needed to open future stations.”

The second recommendation the county needs to respond to states, “The County should consider adopting a policy to enter into agreements with all developers to establish Community Facility Districts to provide operating revenue for ECCFFD.”

The Grand Jury also wants the county to respond to a finding, “The County does not always require developers of residential and commercial properties establish Community Facility Districts.”

Except on two expense items, supervisors unanimously approved the new spending plan Tuesday, a 6.1% increase from the current fiscal year’s budget of $1.47 billion.

“We’ve been pretty conservative in developing this budget based on what’s been going on in Washington,” observed Supervisor Karen Andersen of Danville.

“We’re at a time of making tough budget decisions,” echoed board chair Federal Glover of Pittsburg, “We have to be careful. We don’t have the resources like we used to have.”

Even then supervisors forged ahead and approved a budget that will tap into rising revenues coming in from a robust local economy where the county unemployment rate is hovering around 4% and a strong real estate market has helped boost county assessed property value revenues swell 26.5% since 2012. The county assessor projects 2017-2018 fiscal year assessed value revenues will rise 5% to $201,288,700. That is an increase from $191,703,525 in 2016-2017.

Supervisor Karen Mitchoff voted against the board’s proposal to spend $250,000 for the Contra Costa Cares program. Other supervisors approved the allocation confident the nonprofit health organization will round up its matching $250,000 to provide medical services to undocumented immigrants especially in west Contra Costa.

Mitchoff did not think Contra Costa Cares will come through with its share of money. “It’s my concern the matching share will not materialize and for that reason I do not think the county should put its money into the Contra Costa Cares program,” Mitchoff told The Contra Costa Herald.

The Pleasant Hill supervisor also the voted against a proposal to spend $220,000 to help the financially struggling East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District reopen the shuttered Knightsen fire station with equal contributions from the first district and the cities of Brentwood and Oakley.

“I just don’t think it’s going to happen,” Mitchoff said about the Knightsen fire station debacle

On a 4 to 0 vote supervisors agreed to hire three deputy public defenders to help reduce the rising number of felony cases attorneys now handle. Currently each department felony public defender attorney handles 25 to 40 clients at a time.

Supervisor Anderson abstained from voting on the public defender item due to a potential conflict of interest with her husband’s work with the Bar Association.

Supervisors learned since April 18 two new capital cases were filed in the Public Defender’s Office that will increase work load.

Elsewhere, the new budget permits the Sherriff-Coroner Department to make 13 hires. The Public Works Department will hire 20 full-time workers.

The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District plans to hire a Departmental Community and Media Relations Coordinator, a storekeeper, three fire dispatchers, and one assistant fire chief.

Searching for More Rental Revenue

In other action, the board referred to the Finance Committee a request from Supervisor John Gioia of El Cerrito a proposal to generate increased revenue from the rental of hotels located unincorporated areas by advertising those rentals on electronic hosting platforms like Airbnb.

The county generates $2 million to $2.5 million a year from a 10 percent transient occupancy tax that is assessed at four hotels located in unincorporated areas.

Those four hotels are the Burlington Hotel in Port Costa, The Renaissance Club Sport Hotel in unincorporated Walnut Creek, the Crowne Plaza in unincorporated Concord, and the Embassy Suites in unincorporated Walnut Creek.

Supervisors also voted 5-0 to authorize the county Conservation and Development Department to sign a disposition and development agreement with the Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond for the sale of six parcels of property in North Richmond. The property is the planned site of a $26.4 million 42-unit low and moderate income housing project site. The development will include about 900 square feet of commercial/retail space.

Feeling the heat from environmentalists, residents, and politicians, Contra Costa County supervisors took the big step Tuesday of picking a solar power plant developer that could potentially help consumers on average cut monthly bills up to 55 percent.

Mitchoff favored a competing proposal submitted from a freshly minted company called EBCE that Alameda County officials have recently adopted as their solar power plant developer. “I think that the EBCE program is better for our long-term growth,” Mitchoff said.

Other supervisors were more impressed with MCE’s seven-year track record, financial stability and $25 million in reserves and capability of generating good paying union jobs.

Some 285,000 residents residing in unincorporated Contra Costa County could see electricity rates decline in comparison to PG&E rates. For a large solar power project generating 5 megawatts per hour, the average monthly bills could potentially decline from $105 per Megawatt Hour (MWH) to $85 per MWH

For Board Chair Federal Glover the selection of MCE Clean Energy could mean the potential development of solar power plants in the Northern Waterfront Area. He is overseeing a planning study of the 28,000-acre area stretching from Hercules to Oakley that can potentially generate 18,000 jobs in a variety of technical fields by the year 2035.

Glover said he already envisions the development of a battery storage and a call center in parts of the northern waterfront, especially Pittsburg.

“With MCE we will be able to lower rates for consumers and bring jobs and growth to the Northern waterfront area,” Glover said.

Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond said he felt comfortable with the MCE program because of its seven years of experience. “There is less risk with the MCE choice,” he said.

“This is an historic day,” said Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville. “MCE has the established credit rating and reserves.”

Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood favored the MCE proposal based on how it will create “long term jobs” for county residents. Fifty percent of the jobs created must go to county residents.

“I also hope in the next five to 10 years we’ll become self-sufficient,” Burgis added.

Supervisors listened to a majority of the more than 30 speakers urge them to approve the MCE Clean Energy program over the EBCE program.

Elected officials from Lafayette, Richmond, Walnut Creek, Orinda, San Pablo and Moraga encourage supervisors to approve the MCE program over the EBCE program. Those cities have already approved the MCE program over the EBCE program, with Moraga most recently inking a contract with the company.

Richmond Mayor Tom Butt encouraged supervisors to approve MCE as its solar power provider based on the city of Richmond’s experience with the company. “It’s been a very good move for Richmond. Our residents have been saving millions of dollars,” he said. MCE has developed two solar power projects worth more than $12 million for the residents of Richmond, he said.

Byron resident Steen Larson encouraged supervisors to approve MCE as the solar power contractor. “MCE is the best choice,” he said. “This company will fulfill the need for job training and providing the best paying jobs.”

Two years in the works, a 193-unit apartment development planned near the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Port Chicago Highway in Bay Point should finally break ground next spring, now that the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the $60 million project on Tuesday.

Supervisors listened to Bay Point resident CeCe Valenzuela and several other residents attempt to block the residential development by appealing a County Planning Commission decision granting permission for Meta Corp. to construct the apartment development consisting of eight three-story buildings.

Valenzuela charged the development planned by Meta Corp. will worsen traffic, local schools, air quality, and disrupt tenancy levels.

Valenzuela also criticized the development’s landscape and recreational plans as being inadequate for a development that could accommodate as many at 500 tenants. The project will have a 25,180-square foot outdoor swimming pool and recreation area.

“This development is overwhelming and very massive” Valenzuela said. The 193 apartment units would one, two, three, or four bedroom units. Nineteen units would be set aside for low income tenants.

Development architect Ralph D. Strauss disagreed with Valenzuela saying “The number of people in the units will be professionally managed.”

“This apartment project is the last thing Bay Point needs,” said Bay Point resident Welbon I. Salaam. “This will impact our local school, worsen an area already with a high crime rate and slow down even more the police response time.”

Bay Point resident Douglas Parker opposed the apartment development based on the fact far more people will live in the apartment units than permitted. “To suggest that the new apartments will house 2.5 people per unit is a gross under estimate,” he said. “The reality is that these units will house multiple families and overtax any already congested neighborhood.”

“This apartment development will negatively impact three elementary schools and a middle school in the area,” said Bay Point resident Judy Dawson.

In the end, supervisors sided with the developer noting that the high demand for affordable housing in the Bay Area overshadows most other needs including stores, roads, schools and jobs.

During his 17 years on the board, Board Chairman Federal Glover said he has seen a number of potential commercial and residential projects for the Bay Point site come and go, but this apartment development is one he can live with. “I’m impressed with this development,” Glover said. Glover’s district represents Bay Point.

Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill said she’d vote to deny the appeal and vote in favor of the project because the development will not severely impact traffic, there will not be a significant increase in student enrollment at nearby Mt. Diablo Unified School District schools, and most importantly there is a need for more affordable housing.

“We need to push for affordable housing,” she said. “Each community needs to take on its share of housing.”

Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond also called for more affordable housing.

“One of the top issues in the Bay Area is the need for more affordable housing,” he said. “This development will help contribute to the housing shortage.”

In other Board action, by a unanimous vote, supervisors approved a two-year $386,173, contract with Admin, Inc. to provide administrative support services for the Sheriff-Coroner. The contract will allow the Sherriff-Coroner Office to relieve one sworn officer from non-administrative duties, getting crime reports requested by the general public. The contract will be effect from March 1, 2017 to Feb. 28, 2019.

Contra Costa County supervisors took a peek at a proposed $3 billion budget on Tuesday that includes $250,000 to expand a popular health care program for low income citizens, $220,000 to reopen the shuttered Knightsen fire station in the East Contra Costa Fire District, and spend $500,000 for the Northern Waterfront Study Intiative.

Supervisors are scheduled to adopt the new spending plan at its May 9 meeting to replace the current $2.6 billion budget.

During the seven-hour hearing, some supervisors seemed to play the conservative card due to fiscal events that have developed in Washington, D.C. and how federal cuts in health care, education and housing might have a ripple effect at the state and county level.

County Administrator David Twa said the county receives 48 percent of its funds from the federal government so there is concern that funding cuts from Washington will impact county operations if not in the 2017-2018 fiscal year, it could occur in the 2018-2019 fiscal year when the county needs to renegotiate labor contracts with doctors, nurses. and fire fighters.

“This is one of the most difficult budgets to assemble,” Twa told supervisors, “because there is so much uncertainty at the state and federal levels.”

The fiscal uncertainty also affected the supervisors.

Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill said she would not approve the proposal for an additional $250,000 to expand the Contra Costa Cares health care program for low income residents. The county allotment would be matched by the nonprofit organization to help access the health care program to 1,000 residents. This current fiscal year the county spent $1 million and has proposed $1.25 million for the upcoming 2017-2018 fiscal year.

“There’s a large part of the community that doesn’t understand why we see a part of the undocumented community the way we do, but in this case, I cannot support spending an extra $250,000 for the Contra Costa Cares program,” Mitchoff said.

Mitchoff also raised doubts that Contra Costa Cares has the fundraising capabilities to collect $250,000 to expand the program. “The hospital is not committed to contributing the $250,000,” she said.

“We’re seeing the rise of people awareness to their right to health care,” said Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood. She favors the extra funding for the health care program that drew about eight speakers in support of the health care program. “I’m in support of expanding it,” she said.

Initially supervisors were reluctant in setting aside $220,000 to reopen the Knightsen fire station for fiscal years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, but eventually caved in to reality that the station needed to opened. Supervisors are frustrated over the way the ECCFD has managed its financial and business affairs. The fire district had shuttered the fire station in order to open a new station in Brentwood..

Supervisors also voted 4-0, with Supervisor Candace Andersen absent, to designate $500,000 for the Northern Water Front Study Initiative, a project of Board Chair Federal Glover. The funding would be spent on data development, parcel identification, engineering, and public outreach.

New Airport Safety Classifications Approved

Supervisors also approved the creation for four Airport Safety Office Classifications at the Byron Airport and Buchanan Field to replace three outdated classifications that should help the county improve the retention rate among safety personnel. The county has a 60 percent retention rate among 17 personnel assigned to aircraft rescue and firefighting duties.

Up to $45 million in tax-exempt California Municipal Finance Authority revenue bonds aimed at renovating three existing buildings and constructing five academic buildings for the nonprofit Making Waves Academy in Richmond sailed through the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

As a consent item, supervisors voted 3-0 to approve the issuance of non-public, tax-exempt bonds for the big charter school project.

Supervisors John Gioia of Richmond and Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill were absent.

The big charter school project will renovate and add up 204,500 square of space for the school that was founded in 1989 to enroll students in the West Contra Costa Unified School District into an accelerated academic program designed to boost students’ admission to four-year colleges.

Some 400 Making Wave Academy graduates have gone on to college, he said. Graduates have gone on to the University of California, California State University, Stanford University, Ivy League schools and other prominent four-year institutions of higher education.

With 780 students now enrolled in grades eight through 12, Roth could not estimate how much enrollment will increase with the expanded campus.

Roth expects ground to be broken for the first phase of construction sometime next year. The project is planned to be completed by 2019 or 2020.

The Contra Costa County Office of Education that has served as the charter school authorizer since 2007 recently reauthorized the academy’s charter for an additional five years with the California Department of Education.

Before the charter school can proceed on the construction, the Contra Costa County Board of Education must also sign off on the project since the county office is the school’s charter school authorizer, said Terry Koehne, chief communications officer for the county office of education. The county board is expected to take up the Making Waves expansion in ensuing months.

“We issued a letter of support to the board of supervisors,” Koehne said. “Making Waves has met and exceeded its fiscal and academic requirements.”

“The board of supervisors’ action means that the county is off the hook,” said Anthony Stubbs, a CMFA advisor. Since the funds backing the bonds are from the private market, the supervisors’ action clarifies no public funds are at risk in connection with the Making Waves project.

“The county served as the official hearing body for the nonprofit school for its CMFA application,” said Kristen Lackey of the Contra Costa County Conservation and Development Department.

“Our function is pretty limited to holding public hearings on this project,” Lackey said. “No one showed up for the March 6 public hearing that we conducted.”

The charter school project involves the renovation of three existing school buildings at 4123 Lakeside Dr., the construction of a 47,000-square foot, two-story building, a 21,500-square foot one story gymnasium building and a new sports field adjacent to the Making Waves Academy at 4075 and 4123 Lakeside Dr.

The academy plans to erect two new two-story middle school buildings, one a 72,000 -square foot structure at 2925, 2930, and 2975 Technology Court and a 39,000-square foot building along with a one- story gymnasium building with 25,000 square feet at 4301 and 4175 to 4197 Lakeside Dr.

The charter school also plans to construct and equip a new sports complex at 2600 Hilltop Dr. The complex will consist of 13 acres with a swimming pool, sports fields and baseball fields.

AdultLiteracyGrantApproved

Also at the meeting, the Supervisors flashed the green light for Contra Costa County Librarian Melinda Cervantes to apply for a California State Library Grant of up to $80,000 to fund the library’s adult literacy program, Project Second Chance, from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Since its launch in 1984, PSC has helped more than 5,600 county residents to learn to read.

Supervisors also approved a $73,173 contract with the city of Pleasant Hill for the county Health Services Department to provide homeless outreach services from March 1 2017 through June 30, 2018.